1. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #78022 by HomoErectorSet on October 11, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Fairness is a very subjective word - justice the same.

Personally, I feel/think that, I have no natural sense of fairness or justice. They are meaningless concepts to me (internally). I try to get away with as much as I can, up to the limit that society (peers, family) will tolerate (i.e. consequence) or up to a limit that I can personally; psychologically; stomach (as I am naturally; and/or nurtured to be; a non-violent person; also I am subject to physical exhaustion - duh).

If I was hungry I would prefer the grape.
If I was thirsty I would prefer the cucumber.

If you tried to give me a cucumber when I wanted a grape and saw you handing out grapes - I would refuse the cucumber (and I am a person, at least I think I am?). Not because of fairness or justice, but rather because of hunger; or a preference for nutrition. A nature/nurtured response to a biological resource is doing the choosing for me; my biology (and environmentally expressed mind) is guiding me (not a subjective concept). Even a person is governed, at times, by instinctual (or instinctual-like) responses to the environment.

Knowing the cucumber is not as nutritious as the grape - skewers the relevance of (pokes many a hole in) the subjective conclusion about subjective concepts. Doesn't it?

Preference for actual nutrition (sugar vs water) is not an example of understanding fairness. I am not even convinced people in general have a very good natural sense of fairness/justice.

If it were natural then strong people would not be so easily influenced by belief, kin preference (nepotism), needs, desires, etc. Also, nonsensical mind-worms wouldn't have such a profound affect upon people - but they do. I think consequence of action within a society explains better our sense of fairness/justice. Of course the limit, of what that is, rests upon the boundary of our biology; what our genes can actually express environmentally.

2. Migrations influenced immune evolution

Comment #78006 by HomoErectorSet on October 11, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Doesn't science already know this? Hasn't science filled in every gap of understanding yet? No.

The article's intent and meaning should be self evident. Is it not?

It is an example of a certain amount of detail/specifics being hammered out by real science; and "the mountain" of evidence for biological systems determined by natural selection being increased; elevated to a higher mark; gradually.

It isn't sufficient to postulate (or know) that the immune system is affected by the environment (this includes any type of contagion: virus, bacteria, etc; as parts of the environment, affecting documentable diversity within the human genome); the hypothesis must be factually explored and documented (differences documented and explained).

It is a simple example of the necessary (using the generalities arrived-at, by a leap of prior monumental induction/deduction, as a guide to document specifics). While there may be no epiphany here (leap of theory; great new idea), there is a gradual increase in the human knowledge base - and that is clearly what this means and amounts to.

Such gradual unsung efforts are heroic efforts of human achievement nonetheless. Who knows what particular piece of the knowledge pie will lead to something truly big and/or is relevant to increased future prosperity or the saving of a life? All effort in science is worthwhile even those toiling in anonymity documenting the mundane (which potentially is anything but mundane).